Tuesday, March 30, 2004

URGENT MEMO TO FEDERAL ELECTION COMISSION: RE Proposed rules to regulate non-profit groups critical of President Bush or members of Congress

URGENT MEMO TO FEDERAL ELECTION COMISSION

TO: Ms. Mai T. Dinh, Acting Assistant General Counsel, Federal Election Commission

RE: OPPOSE Proposed new rules that would regulate groups that communicate with the public in ways critical of President Bush or members of Congress

Let me begin my comment by stating that reading news reports of the latest proposed legislation proposed by right-wing ideologues has now become almost unbelievable (but unfortunately true). I can't believe we are talking about intentional manipulation of news and direct infringement of free speech for political reasons.

The proposed legislation in question could muzzle all kinds of non-profit organizations. The fact that the Republican National Committee is involved in promoting this type of legislation is an amazingly blatant attempt to impose partisan control on organizations and the millions of people represented by them.

As a community leader and senior citizen, I am not sure how best to suggest ways to counter this insidious and malevolent trend that seems to have no limits -- ranging from unprecedented license for corporate conniving to constitutional amendments regulating our private lives. I am sending this letter to thousands of people to whom I am connected through my email and web-based networks, with copies to my Senators, Congressional representative, and other key elected officials.

In my opinion, this latest proposal (to control the free-speech prerogative of organizations that seek to place ordinary citizens in contact with the decision-making apparatus of the government) is the final red flag -- an "offense too far" -- that demands vigorous action by concerned citizens.

It is with a sense of urgency and dismay that I ask you to maintain the principles of our American freedoms of speech. association, and direct political involvement. I implore you to refuse this unvarnished play for political control by partisan operatives seeking to deflect any criticism and holding accountable of the current administration.

Thank you for your attention and unbiased disposition of this vitally important matter.

Editor, Ecumenical News
revrickm@astound.net

cc: Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Barbara Boxer
Representative Ellen Tauscher
Representative George Miller

Friday, March 12, 2004

[+] Whose God do you serve?

An Article by Rev. Troy D. Perry,
Founder and Moderator
Metropolitan Community Churches

[The following article was written by Rev. Troy Perry at the request of the editors of In Los Angeles Magazine and appears in the March 9, 2004 edition.

Rev. Troy D. Perry is a veteran human rights activist and Founder of Metropolitan Community Churches, the world's largest and oldest church group with a primary, affirming ministry to the LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered] communities. Perry was the first openly gay member of the Los Angeles Human Rights Commission and a past delegate to the White House Conference on Hate Crimes. In 1969, Rev. Perry performed the first same-sex church wedding in the U.S. and in 1970 filed the first-ever lawsuit in California seeking legal recognition of gay marriage. In July 2003, Rev. Perry and Phillip Ray De Blieck, his partner of 18 years, were married under Canadian law.
]


Whose God Do You Serve?

With his endorsement of an anti-gay Constitutional amendment, President George Bush fired the opening shot in a new culture war. This new war -- launched, incidentally by the President who promised to be a "uniter, not a divider" -- has not only divided the larger culture, but it's also created a divide between faith groups.

Fundamentalist and conservative religious groups have become the foot soldiers in this new culture war -- a war in which the declared enemy is LGBT families.

How did this happen -- after four decades of struggle, advancement, and activism for our civil rights? It's happened in part because the President has blurred the lines that separate church and state. (By the way, let me make a disclaimer: I am a strong believer in freedom of religion for LGBT people who wish to follow a spiritual path -- and in freedom from religion for those who do not.)

Why would the "sanctity" of marriage be the cornerstone of this debate? "Sanctity" is word that has a religious connotation; it means "holy or religiously sacred." How in heaven did the current government get involved in that?

Take for example the President's current favorite phrase "sanctity of marriage." It's time we were all asking just how much sanctity there is when the law allows straight couples to marry strangers on reality TV shows and permits couples to be married in drive-through chapels with Elvis impersonators? Want a real debate on the "sanctity of marriage"? How about discussion of a Britney Amendment?

There is a genuine societal threat that is far greater than any imagined threat to heterosexual marriage -- and that's the current attempt by fundamentalist religious groups to impose their spiritual values on the LGBT communities and in the law.

I've wrestled with this question: What makes so many conservative religious leaders support the denial of our LGBT legal rights? As a religious leader who has worked for 35 years in the LGBT communities, let me suggest that such views may flow naturally from a flawed and negative view of God.

My longtime ministry with LGBT people reminds me that there is a deep well of spirituality in our communities. The oppression and rejection we've experienced from far too many faith groups has not killed our spirituality -- for many of us it has served to deepen our faith and strengthen our spiritual lives.

The current culture war has only highlighted the stark and opposing views of God within our culture. And for people of faith, how one views God has a powerful impact on our worldview.

Believe me, there is a strong correlation between believing that God is harsh, controlling and vengeful -- and a worldview that wants to control people and impose its views on others. The Church did this to African-American people in defending slavery, only later to apologize and confess its sin. For centuries, many churches used the Bible to oppress women, only later to apologize and confess its sin. Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are still waiting for our apology and confession

Many LGBT people of faith have discovered a very different God: a God of creation, love, diversity, joy and hope. Many of us have discovered a God of liberation through whom we integrate our sexuality and our spirituality. This faith view is so profound and positive that many writers and researchers now refer to it specifically as "Queer Spirituality." Is it any wonder there is such a wellspring in our community to expand freedom and to enjoy the promise of liberty and justice?

As a Christian, the greatest irony is that conservative Christians are using references to Jesus in their anti-gay rhetoric. But here's what they fail to tell you: Jesus never once mentioned or condemned homosexuality. Not once. Not anywhere. Somehow they left that bit of information out of the discussion. Is it any wonder that one of my favorite bumper stickers says, "Jesus, deliver us from your followers."

Here's what I do know: Jesus spent a lot of time talking about love -- and that's something that's missing in both the rhetoric and actions of anti-gay religious groups.

In my own faith tradition as a Christian, we celebrate Jesus as Love Incarnate. Love is the most noble _expression of spirituality. Over the past 35 years, I've officiated at hundreds and hundreds of weddings for same-sex couples. Every year, Metropolitan Community Churches around the world perform more than 6000 gay and lesbian marriages. And this is my testimony: In each and every one of those weddings I have sensed the presence of Love Incarnate and witnessed the depth of love present in our community.

How odd -- how perfectly odd -- that fundamentalist Christians are actively working to destroy our LGBT expressions of love and commitment to one another. Maybe they should give a bit more thought to those bracelets that read, "What would Jesus do?"

In the current political debate, be reminded that distorted views of God invariably lead to the distortion of values and freedoms. It's time for the current presidential administration to stop worshipping the God of political expediency -- and take a fresh look at the God of love and justice.

And if political leaders insist on bringing their spiritual views to the public dialogue, maybe it's time we began asking them: Whose God do you serve?